Ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server accepts immunity offer from FBI to provide interview ...

(UK) Daily Mail ^ | March 3, 2016 | Alexandra Klausner

[tacticalogic]

The immunity agreement should be voided if the FBI proves that he lied or failed to fully answer a question. Hopefully, they used wording to this effect. Otherwise, he may lie or give incomplete answers and there will be nothing they can do. I would hope they did it this way but it may be they wanted only to look like they were doing all that they could. I no longer have faith in the motives or competence of government officials.

Or there's a pardon and a cushy private sector job in it for him if he can muck up the works until November.

[USNBandit]

The key category to make something stick on this is TS material, generated from another department. TS, because the handling procedures are extremely specific. Generated by another department, because that totally discredits the lies about a difference of opinion over classification.

Mishandling of State produced material would require people at State to tell the truth. I don't think that is a strong possibility.

[Gen.Blather]

-There is obviously evidence of massive criminal activity for the FBI director to be directly monitoring your case and hundreds of FBI with DOJ career attorneys to have been working a case for months.-

I am thinking that if they could make the case without a cooperating witness, they would. Why not nail them all to a tree? Probably because they can not. And (This sounds paranoid but I think history justifies it) if the case ends up hinging on the testimony of a witness or witnesses then those witnesses need to be protected as if they were on a Mafia hit list.

[BykrBayb]

LOL. I’m sure you’re right!

[Jimmy Valentine]

“I can’t help feeling like there’s another shoe waiting to drop.”
Another shoe. About as many as Imelda Marcos had I would bet.

[refermech]

Well, time will tell. The problem is that he did not initiate the creation of the unsecure server. That order came from above. I think Clinton is all but finished.

[mc5cents]

I am not getting my hopes up. The Clintons have a way of securing loyalty. It is just as likely this staffer will fall on the sword and claim it was all his idea and Mrs. Clinton knew nothing.

I don't know about that. There is the old "knew or should have known" rule. She can claim she knew nothing all day long but a person in her position cannot fall back on the "dumb blonde" excuse. She knew alright, no doubt about it.

[WHBates]

They wouldn’t have granted immunity unless they knew what he could likely offer. No one in their right mind would offer such immunity if they didn’t.

[DAC21]

“This guy worked in IT at the State Dept...obviously he knew”

I believe he came onboard at State with Clinton, at her bequest. This involves advance planning on her part, her personnel server was in the works well before she took the job.

[HoosierWordsmith]

“He’s not going to reveal a thing; he will say there is nothing to reveal.”

Exactly...anyone remember Susan McDougal...she spent time in jail to protect the Clintons...the $$$ may already be deposited in this guy’s new Swiss bank account!

[Travis McGee]

[Mouton]

Apart from Trump, has any other candidate stated that he/she/it believes Clinton belongs in jail?

Nice rhetorical question....not a one of the current bunch.

[hinckley buzzard]

Immunity does not protect him from prosecution if he lies under oath. He is too small to sacrifice himself for the machine.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Better add plastic surgery and new fingerprints...

[showme_the_Glory]

I’m willing to bet he’s also wearing his brown pants.

I saw what you did there. That's funny.

[762X51]

When the stench of a floating turd becomes too much here’s how you get rid of it. Grant immunity to the guy who knows where the bodies are buried. Guy then says it was all him but he has immunity so that’s the end of the line and Hillary can get back to fighting for the little guy. An easy turd to flush.

[Mouton]

“They wouldn’t have offered immunity if they didn’t have her dead to rights. This is a perjury trap.”

Why offer immunity...the acts she committed needed no testimony from the guy who set up the servers....she mishandled security information. This is like giving immunity to the rental car agent who leases a car to a driver later cited for DUI....the driver drove, not the rental agent.

BTW, immunity can only be granted by a prosecutor not some FBI agent unless he is doing what they call “street immunity” which has no legal sanction.

Sounds to me like they believe they need motivation and that is what they are seeking as if she told this guy: put up a server so no one knows what I am doing. I doubt even she is that stupid. This is a prima facia case...it needs no supporting info unless they are looking for an out to say “no criminal case”. It has knowledge on her part of the need to safeguard info; it is shown she directed how to go around the regulations demonstrating materiality. She should be in a jump suit by now.

[utahagen]

“He’s not going to reveal a thing; he will say there is nothing to reveal.”

If he were going to say that (i.e., lie), he would have done so off-the-bat, instead of pleading the Fifth. Law enforcement doesn't just offer immunity; they negotiate with a witness (witness's lawyer). The witness's lawyer offers hypothetical testimony and, if the testimony implicates someone higher up than the witness, law enforcement responds with an offer of immunity. So, if this IT guy had offered the hypothetical, “There's nothing to reveal”, Justice wouldn't have offered him immunity. And if this IT guy offered a juicy hypothetical, but when actually testifying, says, “There is nothing to reveal”, Justice will rescind their offer of immunity.

This is very bad news for HRC.

[ReaganGeneration2]

And why did he take the fifth?

[hinckley buzzard]

This is standard strategy, and do not overlook that the FBI has amassed a mountain of information already. They know what this guy did and most of what he knows. The immunity for small fry is simply a step on the way up the ladder to the top, gathering evidence to build an airtight case.

And I believe that immunity covers whatever crimes he may have committed and thus will come to light, but will not cover lying under oath during the interrogation.